Carmack: PS3 is just 'second best' console ever made

For game developers, having a console with plenty of computational power and with high data capacity available per title is certainly an advantage. For id's John Carmack though, these selling points don't seem to be as important as the development tools available for the platform.

Carmack gave a speech at Quake Con earlier this month, in which he seemed to be leaning away from the PS3 console and toward its main rival, Microsoft's Xbox 360 console. RipTen's Dave Oshry got a chance to talk to Carmack sometime later about the industry, and he decided to ask him about his preferred console.

“Well, it's the second best console ever made," Carmack responded when asked what he really thinks about the PS3 console. When asked the obvious follow-up question of which console he thought was the best, he replied, "The 360."

He admitted that there are parts of the upcoming RAGE title where the PS3 has had an easier time due to the extra computational power under the hood, compared to the Xbox 360, but Carmack said it is not so much about the difference in hardware, it's more the dev tools that push him toward the Microsoft console.

31 user comments

Originally posted by asdfasdfasd: The best console is the one that breaks down all the time. Interesting.

Ye, I'm not sure many Xbox 360 owners would agree with him. I had two fail on me, one 2005 model (which was 3 months over warranty... great) and then a 2007 model. Got an Elite though a couple of years back and its fine, as M$ finally apparently solved the RROD/E74 issues about three years ago.

To be fair tho, I never had 1 360 break out of 3. And Ive had two PS3s break on me out of 3. Frankly this whole argument of what is better is just pointless, they are both good in their own ways and their true potential only shines when the consoles are unlocked anyhow.

Personally I've had a 60gb Pro, a 120gb Elite, a 250gb Super Elite and now a 250gb Slim.
Never had so much as a lock-up on any of them.....and I always sold on the older modfel & never once had anyone come back to me complaining their buy had given them problems.

All my Xboxes were from Falcon model on, through Jasper to the latest Valhalla.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting the latest Valhalla (slim) model has any issues.

Xbox got fixed years ago.....and for those caught out by the earlier ones they did bring in a quality warranty.

All I want to say is that both Sony and Microsoft have their specialties; clearly Microsoft's background allowed for easier to use dev tools because Microsoft specializes in software... and historically Sony's hardware has been amazing.

I remember reading a few years ago about how Sony put a ton of emphasis on the PS3's hardware capabilities but rarely communicated with their software team, ultimately causing issues with the viability between software and hardware used.

This also goes to show you that Microsoft's online service was pretty much mastered since again - it was designed by a software company. I own a PS3, I am at time jealous at times of XBL but to be completely honest - I would rather have hardware that is more flexible towards future revisions through software than having hardware that was rushed, shoddy (first few revisions), excessively loud (1st - current...though much better than before) and excluded technology that was standard and/or finalized (built in wi-fi, HDMI).

Both systems have their flaws, (remember most developers HATED Sony's machine from the dev-tools impression, OH and don't forget Sony saying "We designed the PS3 to be hard to develop for")... sigh... but still, both systems offer amazing titles and and when it all boils down to it - isn't that all that matters at the end of the day?

The PS3 might have some theoretical extra power but the net effect is that there is little or no difference.

Like I mentioned this is no surprise because Microsoft knew what Sony were doing when PS3 & Xbox 360 were being designed......and in fact in the end Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it.

There is no vast difference, people can make all the claims about optimising they want but the fact is Sony have a large number of 1st part game studios doing nothing but optimising for PS3.
The end result?
Still little or no differences of any serious note.

Read the article (from a business magazine, not a game console fanzine).
It's no surprise.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Aug 2011 @ 18:36

Im a pc gamer and i refuse to buy either console, but i would like to add to interestx post... While ps3 has more power inside it it doesn't really make a difference if development tools are poorer and it takes a lot effort to gain those extra flops. Making games is a business and if something is too expensive to be made (in other words too difficult) and isn't necessity it wont be done. Thats most likely the reason why so few game developers harness that extra power of ps3. If you theoretically have a lot power it doesn't really count if you for have to put twice the hours to gain it.

For me good game isn't about graphics. This has been problem with Carmack long time. Every game hes team made up to and including doom3 were tech demos with no good story. Im not saying doom and quake were bad games, im saying that with good story (telling) combined to Carmacks genius work their games would have been pure gold. Fortunately they seem to go in that direction.

Originally posted by DXR88:PS3 still has more power, the only reason carmack doesn't like it is because HE cant simply carry over the tools from the PC to the PS3 where as the Xbox doesn't have that issue.

QFT

Originally posted by Interestx: DXR88

The PS3 might have some theoretical extra power but the net effect is that there is little or no difference.....

There is no vast difference, people can make all the claims about optimising they want but the fact is Sony have a large number of 1st part game studios doing nothing but optimising for PS3.
The end result?
Still little or no differences of any serious note.

"Little or no difference"...Um yeah oookay suuure ~ Let me know when the 360 has something on the level of Uncharted 1/2/3, MAG, Resistence 1/2/3, Killzone 2/3, God of War 3 & etc in terms of scale, player amounts & graphical capability. Because those games sure as hell ain't "theoretical". They are constant proof that the 360 has not yet shown it can match them.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Aug 2011 @ 20:13

The most PS3 guys have got is a handful of 1st party games that look a tiny little bit better.
Make a massive great big deal of it if you must.

Last I saw metacritic had the best Xbox & PS3 games scoring around the same.
Sometimes one is a tiny bit better at 'x' than the other and in another instance sometimes the other is a little bit better at 'y'.
Nothing of any real consequence.

......and Xbox is far and away the console that looks best when it comes to the majority of 3rd party games.
No suprises there as it is much better for porting PC games so multi-platformers are always going to suit 2 sections of the market (especially when 1 of them is the bigger) than the PS3.

If you really have to pretend that is some sort of 'superiority' then knock yourself out.

But the truth is Microsoft knew all along what PS3 would be capable of & optimised a cheaper more profitable console to compete & match it in the circumstances most would be used in (so player numbers on those few games where PS3 leads is not such a big deal to most either).
They did this pretty well, as any fair-minded on-looker can see.

In fact given how little time MS has been in the console market I doubt they ever expected to beat Sony on numbers sold this gen, nevermind hit profitability so early & well.
Something Sony would I think give their eye-teeth for.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:35

Originally posted by Interestx: The most PS3 guys have got is a handful of 1st party games that look a tiny little bit better.
Make a massive great big deal of it if you must.

It seems most 360 guys considerably on a whole try to play down the graphical capabilities of the PS3 and make a bigger deal of that than what the truth actually is. Where are the games that can match the titles I posted. Nowhere, because there aren't any. Thus my point is proven and why I asked it in the first place (of which was totally ignored as usual).

Originally posted by Interestx: Last I saw metacritic had the best Xbox & PS3 games scoring around the same.
Sometimes one is a tiny bit better at 'x' than the other and in another instance sometimes the other is a little bit better at 'y'.
Nothing of any real consequence.

So now we disregard the original comment and bring up something else. Although I do agree with what is said as it's actually factual.

Originally posted by Interestx: ......and Xbox is far and away the console that looks best when it comes to the majority of 3rd party games.

Grand opinion, but what you fail to remember is that this is not 2007 anymore. While part of what you say may have some substance the tide has turned since about 2009 or so when it comes to 3rd party multiplatform titles. Yes there are still a small amount of titles that fall into that generality, but it is nowhere NEAR the way it was in 2007. Thus today it does not exactly or correctly apply. Your comment is mere personal opinion more than fact.

Originally posted by Interestx: No suprises there as it is much better for porting PC games so multi-platformers are always going to suit 2 sections of the market (especially when 1 of them is the bigger) than the PS3.

And that is exactly what DXR88 had pointed out in that "the only reason carmack doesn't like it is because HE cant simply carry over the tools from the PC to the PS3 where as the Xbox doesn't have that issue." And I wouldn't exactly call the 360 the "bigger" market when active installed base says otherwise ~ Link 1Link 2 or when attachments rates have been neck and neck lately ~ Link 1Link 2 plus how recent sales amount shows the PS3 selling more software in totality (PS3 115 million 360 103 million despite a "lower hardware installed base" for the PS3 at that time) ~ Link 1 and there is no doubt that with the current price drop that the PS3 should have no problem putting to bed the last notion of "overall sold" more (between the 2) by end of 2011 just as I have said previously (and just as every year before it has and every time the PS3 has gotten a price cut). Just for fun here is a Link that talks about just that.

Originally posted by Interestx: If you really have to pretend that is some sort of 'superiority' then knock yourself out.

Sorry but the only one pretending things are not as they seem is certainly not me here. I give facts with my comments to back what I say up. Not just empty opinions.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Aug 2011 @ 16:13

There's next to nothing in it.....and what little there is is so marginal as to make those pretending it is a big deal just more than slightly silly.

I know, in my family there are several of each, I see them, often.

.......and here's a little food for thought

Is anyone else amused by the leap to claim that "this isn't 2007 anymore" when it comes to a comment about the PS3 and yet other posters get to criticise Xbox on the basis of no HDMI or the poor reliability of the original SKU's without a word of comment?

(The unintended irony being that HDMI came to Xbox 360 in 2007, a fact not an opinion btw.)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Aug 2011 @ 17:25

Originally posted by Interestx: Right on cue the Sony defence goes to work.

And right on que comes the expected "SDF" BS when opinions/comments are shown as non factual and are straightened out with proper facts. Plus last time I checked isn't this is an article about the SONY PlayStation.

Originally posted by Interestx: Oner you're the one trying to pretend there there's a massive gulf between the consoles...

There's next to nothing in it.....and what little there is is so marginal as to make those pretending it is a big deal just more than slightly silly.

So your opinion claims, yet I still don't see you posting ANY titles that compete with the ones I talked about. It's quite simple actually ~ If the difference was so minor (as you constantly claim it is) then why can't you prove me wrong with even 1 game? I dare you to show me just 1 game on the 360 that is on the scale and visuals of God Of War 3.

Just 1 will do...

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Aug 2011 @ 15:41

Originally posted by Interestx: I already said - repeatedly - that PS3 has a handful of 1st party games which have a small advantage (and the metacritic scores show it is just a small advantage).

And you can keep on repeating it as much as you want...that doesn't make it FACTUALLY correct or accurate in any way. If you believe a "Metacritic Score" in ANY way is a valid explanation then my point is proven. A score from a known biased review site does not equal what any one can see with their own eyes. Let alone when you can't even give me 1 example of a title that is at least equal (or better of which there is not).

Originally posted by Interestx: It's the nature of these things, just as Gears 2 was once the leader (by a small amount) so now we have had a year of some 1st party PS3 games which have led (by a small amount).

Gears 3 is likely to give the see-saw another tilt, but nevertheless it'll all be small amounts of difference as it has been between the 2 all the way through.

Gears does not prove anything positive...if anything it is a negative ~ Link 1Link 2 and before you say "bu, buh, but that's Gears 1" Gears 2 was the same thing but with a bit of color and minimal optimization to make it seem like things were changed drastically. As for Gears 3 I will wait until it is out before I comment on it.

Originally posted by Interestx: .....and as I showed with the link regarding the developement info Microsoft had right from the start that should come as no surprise to anyone.

What that proves is ~

1) MS was scared and as usual copied/stole what they could in a desperate attempt to get ahead at others cost instead of doing for themselves which leads me to #2
2) They STILL couldn't get it right and consumers got the $#@! end stick of it
3) And there is STILL not 1 title that can match Uncharted 1/2/3, MAG, GT5, Resistence 1/2/3, Killzone 2/3, God of War 3 in terms of scale, player amounts & visuals (of which you have not provided a single one to dispute my question).

Originally posted by Interestx: Not sure what you are getting so uptight about tho.....is it that I don't show quite not enough 'PS love' for your liking or what?

You came in here misspoke and said misinformation of which I corrected with valid information & links. All you did was skate around what I said and never really answered any of my comments let alone my 1 basic question that would prove me wrong...

I'm not uptight at all. You are just wrong is all, and I wanted to point that out for those to understand the correct info. Plus who's really the one that's "uptight" when you throw out insults at me when I did not towards you?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Aug 2011 @ 21:46

Throughout the few years that I have been browsing the News articles (first under 'vinny13'), not once have I seen Oner make a statement without backing it with legit proof. Yaay for proper arguments :)

Back to the article though, I do think it's wrong to rank a console over another just because of it's portability with other systems. I think the real point to this article is to show how lazy/cheap some developers are...

The problem here is that it all boils down to a value judgement, PS3 fans want to pretend the gulf is vast and the rest of the world just looks on & wonders what they are on.

As for the portability argument, how on earth is that not a plus?
You can dismiss the costs involved & talk about laziness if you wish but the point is mostly financial.
Game devs are not going to enjoy having to spend extra resources (particularly in todays depressed market) porting games across.
That's not being "cheap" it's sometimes a matter of what can be afforded or not.
Clearly not every game studio is an EA or similar.

So I would contend that in fact excellent portability is a major plus as it is one of the reasons Xbox has such a vast & quality game catalogue.

But that's not a plus for or about PS3 so undoubtedly someone will be along in a minute to explain why it's really a bad thing
(it's a bit tragic really).

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Aug 2011 @ 14:55

Originally posted by Morreale: Throughout the few years that I have been browsing the News articles (first under 'vinny13'), not once have I seen Oner make a statement without backing it with legit proof. Yaay for proper arguments :)

Back to the article though, I do think it's wrong to rank a console over another just because of it's portability with other systems. I think the real point to this article is to show how lazy/cheap some developers are...

Thank You, it's greatly appreciated. I answer questions with proof to make my point valid. It's funny how I never seem to get an answer though when I ask certain questions...I wonder why?

Anyway, on topic ~ your lasts sentence is exactly the issue at hand (with certain devs). They care about their money first, not the consumer, nor the final quality of their title. Just how little effort they can put in to maximize their money. Obviously it is a business but just as with anything else but if you make something that people like, enjoy & want, then the money will come easily.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Aug 2011 @ 14:57

Thank you for the entertainment! Xbox vs. PS3, this has been my favorite "News" subject to follow! The ardor with which some "funboys" defend their toy, trying to prove they like and own "the best" of toys and didn't get the short stick by choosing one over the other, is mostly inspiring...Inspires a great amount of smile!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Aug 2011 @ 11:58

Originally posted by cyprusrom: Thank you for the entertainment! Xbox vs. PS3, this has been my favorite "News" subject to follow! The ardor with which some "funboys" defend their toy, trying to prove they like and own "the best" of toys and didn't get the short stick by choosing one over the other, is mostly inspiring...Inspires a great amount of smile!

If it makes you smile...I guess...But what happens to your point of "own the best of toys and didn't get the short stick by choosing one over the other" when someone has all of them (and then some)? How would that person be getting the "short stick" if they have actual experience with them all to have a proper understanding of price/performance/value/capabilities and such? Plus this topic is about console gaming (PS3 & Xbox specifically)...so to be quite honest if you can't add to it, you shouldn't be posting.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Aug 2011 @ 16:56

Originally posted by Oner: ... Plus this topic is about console gaming (PS3 & Xbox specifically)...so to be quite honest if you can't add to it, you shouldn't be posting.

Shouldn't, or don't want me to? Still a free forum, and as far as I am aware, I haven't insulted anyone...And why you're "The ONEr" with ruffed up feathers? Why so defensive?
I do have something to add...Buy whatever, enjoy it, and stop trying so hard to prove to your neighbor that your grass is greener...
I do own a PS3 by the way, and one game. Makes a good Blu Ray player. I'm happy with it.

Originally posted by Oner: ... Plus this topic is about console gaming (PS3 & Xbox specifically)...so to be quite honest if you can't add to it, you shouldn't be posting.

Shouldn't, or don't want me to? Still a free forum, and as far as I am aware, I haven't insulted anyone...And why you're "The ONEr" with ruffed up feathers? Why so defensive?
I do have something to add...Buy whatever, enjoy it, and stop trying so hard to prove to your neighbor that your grass is greener...
I do own a PS3 by the way, and one game. Makes a good Blu Ray player. I'm happy with it.

Originally posted by Oner: ... Plus this topic is about console gaming (PS3 & Xbox specifically)...so to be quite honest if you can't add to it, you shouldn't be posting.

Shouldn't, or don't want me to? Still a free forum, and as far as I am aware, I haven't insulted anyone...And why you're "The ONEr" with ruffed up feathers? Why so defensive?
I do have something to add...Buy whatever, enjoy it, and stop trying so hard to prove to your neighbor that your grass is greener...
I do own a PS3 by the way, and one game. Makes a good Blu Ray player. I'm happy with it.

Originally posted by cyprusrom: Thank you for the entertainment! Xbox vs. PS3, this has been my favorite "News" subject to follow! The ardor with which some "funboys" defend their toy, trying to prove they like and own "the best" of toys and didn't get the short stick by choosing one over the other, is mostly inspiring...Inspires a great amount of smile!

You know, plenty of "funboys" own both toys and develop a preference through their experience with each system. I have both, and tend to play my PS3 more due to it having more features i enjoy.

on topic: sony set out to be a pain to develop for to begin with, this kind of backlash is to be expected.. like 2 years ago, seriously, the system's been out for almost 5 years, major dev's like id should already have everything figured out by now. look at ubisoft, they've already hit the ceiling for the current gen, or so they say.

Originally posted by Oner: ... Plus this topic is about console gaming (PS3 & Xbox specifically)...so to be quite honest if you can't add to it, you shouldn't be posting.

Shouldn't, or don't want me to? Still a free forum, and as far as I am aware, I haven't insulted anyone...And why you're "The ONEr" with ruffed up feathers? Why so defensive?
I do have something to add...Buy whatever, enjoy it, and stop trying so hard to prove to your neighbor that your grass is greener...
I do own a PS3 by the way, and one game. Makes a good Blu Ray player. I'm happy with it.

#14. Do not play the role of a moderator if you are not one. There is absolutely no need to nitpick on the posts of new users. Let the moderators do their work.

or this one ~

Administrative actions

Messages that break any of the rules above can be removed or edited by the moderators and administrators of these forums. Even if something isn't specifically mentioned in the rules, it doesn't mean that it would be permitted. It is up to the moderators and administrators to determine what is appropriate and what is not.

Users who willfully violate the forum rules can be banned by the moderators and administrators.

They help curb issues with those who like to start problems by posting comments that have nothing to do with the topic. A kind of "Mind your business" & "If you don't have anything productive to add then keep it to yourself" problem fixer.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Aug 2011 @ 21:14

Both consoles are good in their own ways. XBOX Live is what makes the 360 great. Great hardware is what makes the PS3 great (great looking games such as KZ2 is inclusive in this point). Fanboys (you know who you are) of both platforms, DEAL WITH IT!

IMPORTANT: If you hate Sony for being so corrupt, copy this image into your signature too!

Originally posted by ps3lvanub: Both consoles are good in their own ways. XBOX Live is what makes the 360 great. Great hardware is what makes the PS3 great (great looking games such as KZ2 is inclusive in this point). Fanboys (you know who you are) of both platforms, DEAL WITH IT!